KUCHANPUDI SUNDARARAMARAJJU Vs. GOVADA PARANDHAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree df the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, in O.S. No. 68 of 1959, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,523-90 from defendants 1, 2 and 3, and for rendition of accounts in the event of defendants 1 to 3 being found liable to pay any higher amount.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is to the following effect: The plaintiff and the fourth defendant are brothers and sons of one Peda Nagaraju of Khajeepalem. Defendants 1 and 2 are brothers and sons of one Ranganaikulu, and the third defendant is the mother of defendants 1 and 2. Ranganaikulu was a friend of the family of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff and his father borrowed monies from him by hypothecating their properties. The mortgaged lands were also leased to Ranganaikulu and under the terms of the deed the rents accruing on the leaseholds were be to appropriated towards the mortgage debt and accordingly the mortgage debt was thus discharged, by appropriation of the rents realised from the lands. One M. Narayana was indebted to the plaintiff's family in a sum of about Rs. 9,000 and this Narayana had a money claim against Naidu Rattam on the foot of an instalment bond executed by him in favour of Naidu Rattam. The plaintiff and his father got the said bond transferred in favour of Ranganaikulu on 19th October, 1931 nominally for their benefit on account of their friendship with Ranganaikulu and the mutual confidence between the parties. The plaintiff and his father also made Narayana to execute a mortgage deed in favour of Ranganaikulu for Rs. 3,850 representing the balance due to the plaintiff's family from out of the mortgage debt. Ranganaikulu was only a benamidar in respect of the said transactions and the plaintiff was the real creditor and beneficial owner of the two claims against Narayana. The plaintiff made Ranganaikulu file three suits: (I) O.S.45 of 1953 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tenali and (2) O.S. 182 of 1938 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Repalle against Narayana and others ; and (3) O.S. 80 of 1942 against Naidu Rattam and others on file of the District Munsif's Court, Repalle, and decrees were obtained against the debtors in all the three suits. Ranganaikulu was only a benamidar and was taking steps in aid of execution at the instance of the plaintiff and his brother, the fourth defendant, for their benefit. Later disputes arose between the first defendant's father and the plaintiff in regard to discharge of the mortgage debt incurred by the plaintiff and his father. According to Ranganaikulu, the mortgage debt was subsisting, but according to the plaintiff and his father, it was discharged as Ranganaikulu appropriated rents towards the discharge of the mortgage debts. Ranganaikulu filed a suit on the foot of the mortgage, O.S. 78 of 1943 in the Sub-Court Bapatla, and ultimately, it ended in a compromise and a decree (Exhibit A-10) was passed in terms of the compromise. Thus, the decree-holder took out execution proceedings and brought the mortgage property to sale. The sale was held on 14th April, 1949 and he realised a larger amount than what was due to him under compromise decree (Exhibit A-10). The plaintiff then filed an application for setting aside the sale, but that was dismissed by the executing Court. Then a miscellaneous appeal was preferred impeaching the sale proceedings and ultimately the appeal was dismissed. It is therefore alleged that that the sale became final only when the High Court dismissed the miscellaneous appeal and the debt should be deemed to have been fully satisfied only on the date of the order of the High Court. Since Ranganaikulu fully realised the debt due under the compromise decree (Exhibit A-10), there was an obligation on his part to collect the decree debts from Narayana and Naidu Rattam and pay them the monies. The defendants under the terms of the compromise decree (Exhibit A-10) should have transferred the decrees to the plaintiff and his brother but instead collected the monies and therefore they are liable to make good the money or render accounts for the monies collected by them. Ranganaikulu died in the year 1952, and defendants 1 and 2 and the third defendant, the widow of Ranganaikulu are bound in equity to render an account as they are holding the monies in trust as the agents of the plaintiff and his brother.

(3.) The plaintiff also averred that he is ready and willing to make good the expenses incurred by late Ranganaikulu in filing the suits and realising the decree debts by instituting execution proceedings. The cause of action according to the plaintiff arose on 10th March, 1945 when Ranganaikulu agreed under the compromise decree (Exhibit A-10) to transfer the said three decrees of the plaintiff and his brother, the fourth defendant, and placed himself in the position of a trustee or an agent.